turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Griffith's CPO
Room to make an article on Rumsfeld? It certainly was for Daniels. A comment like that seems to contradict what we all thought was HT's position on Iraq as articulated in MwIH. Of course something that a character says may not be what an author thinks--look at all the grief poor Stirling gets on that score. Turtle Fan 04:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ::I recall reading a quote from HT where he says don't confuse the opinions of a character with those of an author. ML4E 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC) :Rumsfeld absolutely should have an article. (It's worth noting that Daniels was referenced in GW in passing, but that's neither here nor there). ::One of us will get around to it soon enough. :::I wasn't sure. Someone will get around to it soon enough I think. ML4E 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ::::Upon its completion, we will have the minimum 3 for a Sec of Defense Cat: Rummy, Marshall and Forrestal. TR 23:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC) :::::And the SF Sec. Berkowitz. <_< ML4E 02:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC) ::::::Cool. ::I missed the Daniels reference and have never heard of it in all this time since. What was it? Turtle Fan 20:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC) :::It was pretty much of the "Secretary Daniels said ______" variety. TR 20:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ::::Which volume? It would probably not be too exciting in and of itself, but its significance to later volumes seems to make it cooler. Turtle Fan 22:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ::::Breakthroughs-Sylvia notes his signature on the telegram telling her about George Sr. TR 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC) :::::I'll have to reread for it. :::::Which telegram? Poor girl sure got a lot of those. Turtle Fan 02:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC) :And HT has been pretty consistent about expressing a diverse range of opinions, so who knows. I heard an interview with HT done by some conservative pundit reviewer, and I think HT sounded uncomfortable with the idea of his book becoming pro-Iraq War propaganda. TR 15:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ::"If you listen to these looney grieving mothers and these self-serving Congressional grandstanders and leave before the job is done, the nastiest people in the world get their playground back. Don't be fooled by short-term, temporary signs of progress; even if they take root, they're very slow-growing. Be ready to break a lot of eggs to make this omelette, and to accept a lot of our own eggs getting broken. Oh, and even if the people who keep us in the fight are obnoxious and contemptible, better to put up with them than to give up on the fight altogether. Besides, it's not like the anti-war politicians are any better." That's what I took from MwIH. I can see why he wouldn't want his book hijacked for political purposes, but I find it hard to see him holding any anti-war views in light of that work. Turtle Fan 20:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC) :::Disagreeing with war opponents doesn't mean you support war proponents. I doubt he feels the same about Iraq as he does about WWII (see News From the Front). ML4E 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ::::Well he set out to make a parallel work. I may be reading too deeply into it, but if I am the manner in which MwIH was both written and promoted has encouraged me to do so. That being said, he made Truman and Rayburn look so contemptible, so sneeringly arrogant, that it was as though he was saying "These people are the pits, no doubt about it, but when they talk about the need to see the mission through to completion, you need to listen to them just the same. Or at least, if you're going to give them the political exile they so richly deserve, make sure you're not doing it for the wrong reasons." Turtle Fan 02:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)